<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Thanks for that, Clive. I'll check back and see who made the claim that AT had abstained.<div><br></div><div>Craig</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 2014 Mer 26, at 13:11, Clive Baker wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><p>I should add that I was not chairman at the time of the vote, and we did not abstain, rather we dissaproved the changes proposed as we felt they were a backward move...hope that clarifies the matter<br>
Clive Baker</p>
<div class="gmail_quot<blockquote class=" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p>Well said Christian...I ,as the recently elected chairman of Agan Tavas, agree with you entirely...<br>

<div dir="ltr">I not sure a hands off policy will work. Really I think Jon has hit the nail on the head. It is time to rock the boat. A simple rejection of the SWF in its proposed form, by Agan Tavas, would suffice to put the cat amongst the pigeons. You wouldn't have to say never, just to say that the SWF is an unacceptable orthography because of x, y and z. The SWF only has relevance if it is a consensus orthography. Unfortunately without parity for traditional graphs and the move towards consolidation of the KK aspects, it fails to be of any utility for those of us who would wish to use a traditional orthography. <div>

<br></div><div>If it is allowed to continue without immediate and explicit challenge than the only outcome in the medium term (the next twenty years) is Jon's option 1. Traditional orthographies will be a splintered hobbyist way of spelling Cornish and the mainstream will use the KK form. We will have failed utterly. Waiting for people to see the light will not work. What is academically acceptable is irrelevant in this scenario. It is the 'boots on the ground' that count<br>

</div><div><div><br></div><div>If, as I suspect, very few others here *want* to use it in its current form, then that needs to be flagged up. I simply won't use it and I know there are at lest a few more people here that feel that way too. We need a larger group to represent our position and to fight for a traditional orthography. Otherwise we are easily dismissed individually as malcontents. Perhaps you could poll your members and see what their feelings are? That would be interesting. </div>

<div><br></div><div>It may be that they are in favour of capitulation, in which case I won't stress over it any more and will visit the grave of traditional Cornish every time I come home whilst trying not to look at the hideous caricature of Cornish daubed on the road signs.</div>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The official Agan Tavas position as adopted at the AGM is that, apart from changes that Late Cornish users find desirable and the issue of diacritical marks, the SWF should be left as it is.<br>

<br>
This decision is on the basis that the changes proposed are very few and tend to make the SWF less authentic than it already is.<br>
<br>
It was suggested at our committee meeting today that another 5 years should elapse before changes are made. Hopefully in 5 years time people will be able to look at it in a rational and scholarly way and leave behind any baggage that they are carrying from the past.<div>

<div><br>
<br>
On 24 Mer 2014, at 21:53, Craig Weatherhill wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I managed to get these today. Many items are "no change", so I've singled out those in which a change was decided upon. The below is given in SWF/M for convenience, but the status of Traditional graphs remain unaltered.<br>